Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to
live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it.
For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have
made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure
that they can fulfillzakat. Obama in Cairo addressing the ummah (worldwide Muslim community)

Andrew McCarthy wrote at NRO:

Zakat is the obligation of giving alms.
It occupies a central place in Islam (one of the religion’s five
“pillars”), just as it does in religious traditions more familiar to
the West — you know, the charitable giving that Obama wants to saddle
with less favorable tax treatment.

Do we really have “rules
on charitable giving” that, as the president claims, make it especially
difficult for Muslims — as opposed to others — to give? No. What we
have are federal laws against material support for terrorism. These
were enacted by Congress in 1996. They have been the bedrock of the
DOJ’s anti-terrorism enforcement ever since.

The purpose of
these laws is obvious, as has been the stepped-up effort to use them
since 9/11. If we are going to prevent terrorist strikes from
happening, rather than content ourselves with prosecuting any surviving
terrorists after our fellow citizens have been murdered and maimed, we
have to identify cells and choke off their resources before attacks can
be planned and executed. Thus, a donor who gives to an organization,
including an ostensible charity, that he knows to have been formally
designated as a terrorist entity under U.S. law, or that he knows
facilitates terrorist activity, is liable.

That shouldn’t be a problem, should it? The law does not target Muslim
charities or organizations, and, indeed, several non-Islamic entities
have been prosecuted. Yet the inconvenient fact is that
numerous Islamic charities have proved to be fronts for terrorist
activity, at least in part. These include the Holy Land Foundation (whose top operatives were recently convicted for underwriting Hamas in a prosecution that exposed CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator) and the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation,
one of the world’s largest Muslim charities, headquartered in Saudi
Arabia (which hosted the president for private talks last week). So
material-support statutes have become a sore subject for Muslims
because the vast majority of terrorism — including virtually all
anti-American terrorism — is carried out by Muslims.

Read the whole thing here. It seems that Obama's promise of making jihad financing safe from
investigation and regulation is going forward full throttle. The status
of Holy Land? They were guilty of terror. G-U-I-L-T-Y.

Check out this seminar (hat tip Allyson). A very different spin was given there, I'm sure.

Comments

Acting on Obama's Vow: Jihad Funding and Islamic Charity

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to
live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it.
For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have
made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure
that they can fulfillzakat. Obama in Cairo addressing the ummah (worldwide Muslim community)

Andrew McCarthy wrote at NRO:

Zakat is the obligation of giving alms.
It occupies a central place in Islam (one of the religion’s five
“pillars”), just as it does in religious traditions more familiar to
the West — you know, the charitable giving that Obama wants to saddle
with less favorable tax treatment.

Do we really have “rules
on charitable giving” that, as the president claims, make it especially
difficult for Muslims — as opposed to others — to give? No. What we
have are federal laws against material support for terrorism. These
were enacted by Congress in 1996. They have been the bedrock of the
DOJ’s anti-terrorism enforcement ever since.

The purpose of
these laws is obvious, as has been the stepped-up effort to use them
since 9/11. If we are going to prevent terrorist strikes from
happening, rather than content ourselves with prosecuting any surviving
terrorists after our fellow citizens have been murdered and maimed, we
have to identify cells and choke off their resources before attacks can
be planned and executed. Thus, a donor who gives to an organization,
including an ostensible charity, that he knows to have been formally
designated as a terrorist entity under U.S. law, or that he knows
facilitates terrorist activity, is liable.

That shouldn’t be a problem, should it? The law does not target Muslim
charities or organizations, and, indeed, several non-Islamic entities
have been prosecuted. Yet the inconvenient fact is that
numerous Islamic charities have proved to be fronts for terrorist
activity, at least in part. These include the Holy Land Foundation (whose top operatives were recently convicted for underwriting Hamas in a prosecution that exposed CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator) and the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation,
one of the world’s largest Muslim charities, headquartered in Saudi
Arabia (which hosted the president for private talks last week). So
material-support statutes have become a sore subject for Muslims
because the vast majority of terrorism — including virtually all
anti-American terrorism — is carried out by Muslims.

Read the whole thing here. It seems that Obama's promise of making jihad financing safe from
investigation and regulation is going forward full throttle. The status
of Holy Land? They were guilty of terror. G-U-I-L-T-Y.

Check out this seminar (hat tip Allyson). A very different spin was given there, I'm sure.